Yusuf Ali or Pickthall

[stevecanuck]

Reactive parrying, is not violence. It's a reaction to violence.

Yes, Mohamed "reactively parried" the heads off of hundreds of Jews of the Banu Quraiza tribe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

RULE 4 REMINDER​

4. Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam
Soliciting or advertising for any content outside of the forums, whether your own or that of another person or group, is prohibited, and may be deleted by the staff on sight. This rule applies to any content area of the forum, including but not limited to the chat room, forum posts, profile information, private conversations, and signatures. Special exception may be granted to promote content in keeping with the mission of RF, but requires advance permission from the RF staff.

Spam or off-topic content is also not allowed on the forums. This includes (but is not limited to) posting links or images without discussion-promoting commentary, having a signature that violates signature size guidelines, posting surveys without permission from the RF staff, posts that deviate significantly from a thread topic or its intent, repetitious non-conversational posts, and any other habits deemed spammy by the staff.

OFF TOPIC POST MADE AFTER THIS REMINDER ARE SUBJECT TO MODERATION UNDER RULE 4.​

 

[stevecanuck]

Reactive parrying, is not violence. It's a reaction to violence.

And a Muslim army "reactively parried" against Charles Martel - IN FRANCE.

 

[stevecanuck]

Reactive parrying, is not violence. It's a reaction to violence.

You also moved the goal posts. Even if it's true that Muslims only fight back, it's still committing violence.

Islam became a religion of war and subjugation, and all of these weak defenses are a joke.

 

[icehorse]

I've been reading the Quran lately and as an English only speaker I'm using translations. I am already familiar with this book, layout etc., but never paid much attention to translation. On a previous thread I asked @Debater Slayer about my Yusuf Ali translation and he approved it, and I like it too so it's my go to, but I've also recently bought the Pickthall translation, as well as owning the Sahih International translation, which isn't as positively reviewed by some.

For those who are more familiar, which mainstream English version do you use? I like to use paper books, not online, and have bought some second hand for lack of money, so I'm sticking to the 3 versions I already own. Which is the best and for what reason, strengths, weaknesses of each, etc?

I read the Al-Hilali and Khan translation cover to cover. I used the Ali translation (and one other), to spot check for consistency, and I found good consistency between all three.

The one I read IS controversial. It's viewed by some as the most violen / extreme, and it might be. But I chose it because I believe it is the most highly published version in the world. I think it's important to know what most people are exposed to.

 

[dybmh]

I read the Al-Hilali and Khan translation cover to cover. I used the Ali translation (and one other), to spot check for consistency, and I found good consistency between all three.

The one I read IS controversial. It's viewed by some as the most violen / extreme, and it might be. But I chose it because I believe it is the most highly published version in the world. I think it's important to know what most people are exposed to.

That's an interesting idea. When you say "Al-Hilali and Khan" you're talking about "The Noble Quran"?

From wikipedia - link, I found this interesting:

​

It is available in many languages and is "widely and freely distributed to hajj pilgrims". It is published and printed at the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran, which is said to produce ten million copies of the Quran every year.​

​

The Hilali–Khan, Noble Quran has been given a seal of approval from both the University of Medina and the Saudi Dar al-Ifta. It is also the most widely disseminated Quran in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world. It is available in Airport musallahs. The Saudi-financed translation is interspersed with commentaries from Tabari, Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir.​

​

So, when you say what most people are exposed to, what's happening is it's given away for free. And it appears to be Sunni. Perhaps the prevalence is a measure of Sunni/Saudi inertia? Not so much a measure of social acceptance? Meaning, the popularity of this version is not a measure of its quality.

The Hilali–Khan translation has been criticized for inserting the interpretations of the Wahhabi school directly into the English rendition of the Quran. Many readers will not realise this content does not form part of the original Quran wording. The translation has been accused of inculcating Muslims and potential Muslims with militant interpretations of Islam through parenthetical comments and additions as teachings of the Quran itself.​

​

In other words: reading the Noble Quran is potentially Wahhabi propaganda.

I know you say you compared, but, does this mean wikipedia is wrong? It's saying words were added making it more violent.

 

[icehorse]

In other words: reading the Noble Quran is potentially Wahhabi propaganda.

I know you say you compared, but, does this mean wikipedia is wrong? It's saying words were added making it more violent.

Everything you said is consistent with what I heard, but you added more details.

Again, I chose this version precisely BECAUSE it is so widely published (and presumably read). I'm no scholar of ancient Arabic, so I cannot comment on there being additional words. What I noticed as I spot checked with other translations was that similar ideas might be phrased differently. I did NOT do a thorough Surah by Suran comparison.

 

[Link]

You also moved the goal posts. Even if it's true that Muslims only fight back, it's still committing violence.

Islam became a religion of war and subjugation, and all of these weak defenses are a joke.

Islam as was and is, can be seen as that.

Islam as it ought have been and is meant to be, I don't think can be.

 

[dybmh]

Everything you said is consistent with what I heard, but you added more details.

Again, I chose this version precisely BECAUSE it is so widely published (and presumably read). I'm no scholar of ancient Arabic, so I cannot comment on there being additional words. What I noticed as I spot checked with other translations was that similar ideas might be phrased differently. I did NOT do a thorough Surah by Suran comparison.

One of the nice things about having someone on the forum who is commited to locating all the violent verses in the quran and posting them as a list, is, if I was inclined, I could take that list, and use it to do some cross checking between the different translations to see if stuff was added.

maybe I'll do that one of these days.

Perhaps I could do that for the Ali-Pickhall comparison... hm... I wonder if I have the motivation to do that?

 

[Link]

Yes, Mohamed "reactively parried" the heads off of hundreds of Jews of the Banu Quraiza tribe.

I've concluded this narrative contradicts Quran. The verse that is used to say it was revealed for that event, I have a question, what verse was then revealed for the event of Khaybar?

Also, allows captives only when it's a huge slaughter (to spare more lives). I looked up the words in that verse, and it seems there is a certain number it must exceed in that definition. So it contradicts Quran.

Also it does not make sense that he judged them by their own judge, and all that, which was supposedly more harsh then what Mohammad (s) would have done.

Also, that they betrayed the Muslims would perhaps make sense to punish them even by death - that betraying the Muslims and exposing them in battle and allowing the enemy through the backlines, would, but a lot of things don't add up, for example, why did Mohammad (s) trust such a minority of people with a big important task when they didn't form a big part of the community?

All of it does not add up.

Quran goes into detail of every event, instead you have the verse which without hadiths, would be assumed to be about khaybar to be said about this event.

Surah Ahzab brings everything controversial about the Nabi (s), even explains the issue of Zaid and his wife, but mentions this in a verse without the details? Does not make sense.

The details are very important. There is no mention of betrayal and all that in this verse, which would be huge thing, if God protected them against that. But it would also be big blunder from God and his Messenger (s) so some explanation as to why he trusted them with that position needs to be explained.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How many 'cherries' does it take to prove someone wrong? He made the very unambiguous claim the "the Quran does not teach violence", and I proved that's not true. Seriously, how does it not?

Taking all the context away eliminated any such claim. There is history and context behind each verse which needs to be taken into account.

 

[stevecanuck]

One of the nice things about having someone on the forum who is commited to locating all the violent verses in the quran and posting them as a list, is, if I was inclined, I could take that list, and use it to do some cross checking between the different translations to see if stuff was added.

Or, you could just crack another beer and drop a clumsy insinuation. Oh, I see you've already chosen.

maybe I'll do that one of these days.

Perhaps I could do that for the Ali-Pickhall comparison... hm... I wonder if I have the motivation to do that?

Probably not. But you could also just have another beer.

 

[stevecanuck]

Taking all the context away eliminated any such claim. There is history and context behind each verse which needs to be taken into account.

Go for it.

 

[dybmh]

Or, you could just crack another beer and drop a clumsy insinuation. Oh, I see you've already chosen.

what you've done is useful. I'm being honest. ( and I don't drink, or do drugs excluding wine at passover. ) Thanks to you, I am fully confident that the Quran is OK, because I've gone through your list, read the chapters in context. It's a great relief. Good work.

Probably not. But you could also just have another beer.

No thanks, I don't drink

 

[stevecanuck]

what you've done is useful. I'm being honest. ( and I don't drink, or do drugs excluding wine at passover. ) Thanks to you, I am fully confident that the Quran is OK, because I've gone through your list, read the chapters in context. It's a great relief. Good work.

That was easy to say.

 

[dybmh]

That was easy to say.

Truth is like that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And then comes 2:191 with a caveat that you conveniently ignored - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

The Meccans and Muslims had not yet gone to war, so the criterion for fighting in 2:190 (fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you), did not apply, so Mohamed couldn't use that excuse to fight the Meccans. He immediately solved that problem in 2:191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy.

The importance of the definition of 'fitnah', and of adding it to self defense as the basis for which Muslims can justify attacking non-Muslims, cannot be stressed enough. 'Fitnah' is described in various English translations as any action that either impedes the practice of Islam ("suppresses faith") or simply violates any of God's commandments. The only 'crimes' the Meccans had committed against Islam were to "deny God's signs" (refuse to adopt Islam), and to 'desecrate' the Kaaba by using it for polytheist prayer. But, thanks to verse 2:191, it became enough to warrant attack.

Verse 2:191 is noteworthy for another reason. Although it targeted the pagans of Mecca, it demonstrates a method of instruction commonly used in the Qur'an. While the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the concluding statement is generic and suggestive of a wider application. In this case, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith", implies that military action would be an appropriate response against any person, tribe, or nation deemed guilty of 'suppressing faith'.

In the early Meccan days, persecution included slaughter and torture. Every person has the right of self defense. There were Muslims murdered outright in Mecca for refusing to recant their belief in one God. Freedom of belief was non existent.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That was easy to say.

Same here.

 

[stevecanuck]

In the early Meccan days, persecution included slaughter and torture.

No, it didn't. That's another lie. Prove it. Give a link.

Every person has the right of self defense. There were Muslims murdered outright in Mecca for refusing to recant their belief in one God. Freedom of belief was non existent.

Do you actually believe the crap you post, or are you just a run-of-the-mill propagandist?

 

[Link]

No, it didn't. That's another lie. Prove it. Give a link.

There were verses revealed for Taqiya. Ammar parents were tortured and killed, but he pretended to be a polytheist to avoid it. I think that is when one of the verses about Taqiya were revealed.

There was not mass torture, but there were some who were caught to be Muslims and were tortured for it and killed.

But when numbers increase and there is activity, it becomes harder to hide. When Abu Talib died, God revealed to Mohammad (s) he and his followers must leave or his followers will be killed. That there was no longer a safe haven with Abu Talib dead.